Jonathan points out that it needs good configuration reporting
capabilities:
The other requirement that needs to be there is reporting ablity.
One of things that Landscape is currently lacking from what I have
heard. The ability to manage a large group of computers, report
back on the inventory of the machine (hardware, software, users) and
create custom reports for the entire enterprise. An example: Give
me all of my servers that have X amount of RAM, plus available slots
to put more memory in.
Also once this tool is created, expand it more importanlty to my
clients. So now I can have one piece of management software that I
can manage my entire infrastructre across and deploy patches,
install software, setup, create and deploy confirautions and report
across the entire enterprise. You get that piece of software that
is open source and you will find on of the critical holes.
Jonathan
So here are the general requirements so far:
1) Optional - must not be required for Ubuntu Server
2) Secure - must not have known security issues, must have good known
security architecture
3) Scalable - must be able to administer sets of machines
4) Open Source
5) Easy to use (and setup*) - for 1 or more machines
* I just added the the "setup" part. It seems like that is pretty
important for a single machine use case. If people have to spend a lot
of time just getting it working for a single machine then it isn't
going to get much acceptance.
And these are the major feature categories:
1) Package management
2) User management
3) Security updates
4) Repository management
5) System monitoring
7) Service management (starting/stopping/monitoring)
8) Service configuring
- router
- dhcp
- web
- dns
- firewall
- ids - snort
- ect...
9) Change management
- track changes
- control changes
- rollback changes
10) Configuration reporting
- HW
- SW
- Users
- Global custom reports
--
ubuntu-server mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
